OK, guys...

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
What is the practical difference between prosecuting drug dealers to keep supply of drugs scarce, and legalizing drugs and setting the price at the current street price? Besides, of course, the costs to house drug dealers in prison, and the tens of billions of dollars in enforcement?

I think later generations will laugh at our lack of practicality.
 
I don't know if I'm answering your question directly but it seems to me that criminalising drugs creates ancillary crime. Most folks won't go into the drug business when they are criminalised because it's very risky. Those folks who are prepared to take the risk are, by and large, already criminals. They're used to taking big risks, whether they be from law enforcement and the courts or competitors. And of course, taking big risks means that big returns have to be gained and that means the price of drugs will escalate.

If drugs were legalised, the risk would be removed and the price would plummet and people wouldn't need to commit crime to get the money they need to use drugs. That would kill the criminal element almost overnight.

I know there are objections to my view and I'm looking forward to reading them.
 
There are just about no deaths from Heroin use besides intravanous needle infections and overdoses. If we legalized heroin, there wouldn't be any infections, as people would have clean needles. Overdoses would also be far easier to deal with. People wouldn't be scared to talk send them to the emergency room.

Also think about Ecstacy. MDMA doesn't actually cause many deaths in itself. In fact, an adulterant often sold as MDMA, PMA, causes twice as many deaths, even though it's only a small fraction of all usage. If we legalized MDMA, PMA would become useless. We could save lives by legalizing Ecstacy.

The drug crusaders are blind Don Quixote's making false outrage, declaring "war" on this and that, and generally getting very little done.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
Well think about this. There are just about no deaths from Heroine use besides intravanous needle infections and overdoses. If we legalized heroine, there wouldn't be any infections, as people would have clean needles.

Also think about Ecstacy. MDMA doesn't actually cause many deaths in itself. In fact, an adulterant often sold as MDMA, PMA, causes twice as many deaths, even though it's only a small fraction of all usage. If we legalized MDMA, PMA would become useless. We could save lives by legalizing Ecstacy.

The drug crusaders are blind Don Quixote's making false outrage claims, declaring war on this and that, and generally getting very little done.
Click to expand...

Very thoughtful post. If only you would stop spelling heroin that way it would be downright compelling.
 
Young Libertarian said:
Very thoughtful post. If only you would stop spelling heroin that way it would be downright compelling.
Click to expand...

"Heroin" is based on the word "heroine". It was supposed to be a "heroine" in the war against pain. I often find myself misspelling it but it's a trivial point. The misspelling is deeply imbedded in my mind for some reason.
 
Last edited:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/roe1.htm



Why we should legalize drugs

by Benson B. Roe, MD

Benson Roe is Professor Emeritus and former Chair of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the University of California at San Francisco.

More than 20 years ago when I was removing destroyed heart valves from infected intravenous drug abusers I assumed that these seriously ill patients represented just the tip of the iceberg of narcotic abuse. In an effort to ascertain what proportion of serious or fatal drug-related disease this group represented, I sought information from the San Francisco Coroner. To my surprise he reported that infections from contaminated intravenous injections were the only cause of drug-related deaths he saw except for occasional deaths from overdoses. He confirmed the inference that clean, reasonable dosages of heroin, cocaine and marijuana are pathologically harmless. He asserted he had never seen a heroin user over the age of 50. My obvious conclusion was that they had died from their. habit but he was confident that they had simply tired of the drug and just quit. When asked if the same were basically true of marijuana and cocaine, he responded affirmatively. That caused me to wonder why these substances had been made illegal.
 
Diuretic makes a good point also about the criminalization of the market when pot is illegal. He claims that it is run by criminals who were criminals before. I don't find that necessarily true. I believe deeply that the illegal, suspicious, treacherous nature of the market turns even the best intentioned people into paranoid, greedy addicts.

Regardless, decriminalization or particularly full legalization would do wonders to reduce the criminal element. Once the incentive for quick, easy, tax-free money is removed, you will see a decline in the number of dealers. That would work where deterrence and Mandatory Minimums have so miserably failed.
 
I'm just another little spamatazoa, wriggling my way around the tubes of the internets. :D

Okay, seriously now.

It's called "weed" because it is. Where I live (cannabis production capital of Australia) the bloody stuff will grow if you accidentally drop some seeds in the back garden and taken a piss on them twice a season. So how come this weed, which will grow even if you neglect it, costs so much? Because it's prohibited. And because the distribution of the stuff both locally and export (it's popular interstate and overseas because of purity, bit like BC bud rep) is controlled by criminals who would think nothing of burning your house down with you and your family in it if you crossed them. Kicking in a thousand doors of a thousand grow houses doesn't make a bloody difference, although the tv news gets footage, but even then that's got to the "yawn" stage. If the value on the market dropped overnight due to removal of prohibition said organised criminals would lose interest immediately.

Same goes for other controlled substances (although I will admit some crap needs to be made illegal only because of the immediate damage it can do).
 
Yes, hallucinogens need to stay banned, even LSD, because of the delirium it puts people in. Salvia is probably OK to stay legal, because the high is so short and there's never been any instance of anyone being harmed because of it.

Meth too. But whenever cocaine is legal, there'd be little reason to take meth.
 
Watermark said:
What is the practical difference between prosecuting drug dealers to keep supply of drugs scarce, and legalizing drugs and setting the price at the current street price? Besides, of course, the costs to house drug dealers in prison, and the tens of billions of dollars in enforcement?

I think later generations will laugh at our lack of practicality.
Click to expand...

if you do that do you know how many 9 year olds are going to be using CRACK? it will destroy our way of life and our freedoms not to have drugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top